We’ve written before about some of the ways that RoadSafetyBC’s tribunal impedes access to justice. The seven-day time limit to file for review of the IRP (with currently no opportunity for an extension) is a good example of this. Or the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles recent decision to no longer allow for supplemental submissions after the close of the hearing, even if it takes them two years to render your decision.
But what happens if you cannot fit your submissions in to 30 minutes? What if you have a complex, technical, scientific and legal argument…
One of the longest-standing injustices that flows from policy decisions made at the Superintendent’s office is their decision to limit oral submissions to 30 minutes. Their policy manual indicates that the reason for this is because some lawyers would drone on and on about irrelevant matters (such as the Charter of Rights).
Well, we can’t speak for what other lawyers may have done in the past, but we do know that when we make submissions to the Superintendent, every submission we make is planned, deliberate, and designed to address an issue in the evidence. We are often arguing issues that may seem irrelevant in order to set something up for an appeal, or because we are aware of an impending change in the law that we want to get the advantage of.
It’s a discredit to the hard work of lawyers to discount lengthy submissions on the basis that they are lengthy.
Constantly adapting
Defending IRPs has taught us one thing: we need to constantly be adapting to the new schemes developed by RoadSafetyBC’s tribunal.
The former Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, Steve Martin, has a quote on his new business’s website: To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often. This is attributed to Winston Churchill. We change and we change often to deal with the changing face of IRPs as they develop.
When the 30-minute time limit was implemented, we knew we had to adapt. And so we decided we would just speak faster.
The speed at which we can make IRP submissions is a double-edged sword. Rarely do we run out of our 30 minutes of time. But often, during matters not before the OSMV, we are told by judges or prosecutors or police officers to slow down.
When you have a hearing in Provincial Court, you have the luxury of being able to speak as slowly as necessary because if you run out of time, they will simply schedule more for you. Not with IRPs. Once you run out of time, that’s the end of the hearing. I once had an adjudicator hang up on me right at the end of the 30 minutes.
But what happens if you cannot fit your submissions in to 30 minutes? What if you have a complex, technical, scientific and legal argument regarding the approved screening device? What if the adjudicator interrupts you with questions or asks you to slow down? What if the adjudicator phones you one or two minutes late? What happens then to your 30 minutes?
Under the new rules imposed by RoadSafetyBC, that’s just too bad.
Late last week I received a decision that made this clear. The Superintendent is prepared to defend their 30 minute policy. The Immediate Roadside Prohibition scheme has been heralded as swift and severe. Justice done quickly, then and there at the roadside. It is unclear why the Superintendent feels that justice can also be done in 30 minutes, particularly where there is evidence that the adjudicators cannot follow the submissions that need to be made in the limited time.
If the policy keeps the adjudicators from following the submissions, then the policy is wrong.
If the policy keeps the lawyers or applicants from presenting their case and making all the arguments available to them, then the policy is wrong.
From where we stand, there is nothing about this policy that is right.
Swift, severe, and all in 30 minutes or less. That is not what we expect in our justice system.